On 22.04.2024 09:54, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 04:34:41PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.04.2024 12:50, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:15:19PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 19.04.2024 12:02, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>>>> Livepatch payloads containing symbols that belong to init sections can
>>>>> only
>>>>> lead to page faults later on, as by the time the livepatch is loaded init
>>>>> sections have already been freed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Refuse to resolve such symbols and return an error instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note such resolutions are only relevant for symbols that point to
>>>>> undefined
>>>>> sections (SHN_UNDEF), as that implies the symbol is not in the current
>>>>> payload
>>>>> and hence must either be a Xen or a different livepatch payload symbol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do not allow to resolve symbols that point to __init_begin, as that
>>>>> address is
>>>>> also unmapped. On the other hand, __init_end is not unmapped, and hence
>>>>> allow
>>>>> resolutions against it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger....@citrix.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Changes since v1:
>>>>> - Fix off-by-one in range checking.
>>>>
>>>> Which means you addressed Andrew's comment while at the same time extending
>>>> the scope of ...
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -310,6 +311,21 @@ int livepatch_elf_resolve_symbols(struct
>>>>> livepatch_elf *elf)
>>>>> break;
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Ensure not an init symbol. Only applicable to Xen
>>>>> symbols, as
>>>>> + * livepatch payloads don't have init sections or equivalent.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + else if ( st_value >= (uintptr_t)&__init_begin &&
>>>>> + st_value < (uintptr_t)&__init_end )
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + printk(XENLOG_ERR LIVEPATCH
>>>>> + "%s: symbol %s is in init section, not
>>>>> resolving\n",
>>>>> + elf->name, elf->sym[i].name);
>>>>
>>>> ... what I raised concern about (and I had not seen any verbal reply to
>>>> that,
>>>> I don't think).
>>>
>>> I've extended the commit message to explicitly mention the handling of
>>> bounds for __init_{begin,end} checks. Let me know if you are not fine
>>> with it (or maybe you expected something else?).
>>
>> Well, you mention the two symbols you care about, but you don't mention
>> at all that these two may alias other symbols which might be legal to
>> reference from a livepatch.
>
> I'm having a hard time understanding why a livepatch would want to
> reference those, or any symbol in the .init sections for that matter.
> __init_{begin,end} are exclusively used to unmap the init region after
> boot. What's the point in livepatch referencing data that's no
> longer there? The only application I would think of is to calculate
> some kind of offsets, but that would better be done using other
> symbols instead.
>
> Please bear with me, it would be easier for me to understand if you
> could provide a concrete example.
The issue is that you do comparison by address, not by name. Let's assume
that .rodata ends exactly where .init.* starts. Then &__init_begin ==
&_erodata == &__2M_rodata_end. Access to the latter two symbols wants to
be permitted; only __init_begin and whatever ends up being the very first
symbol in .init.* ought to not be referenced.
Worse (but contrived) would be cases of "constructed" symbols derived from
ones ahead of __init_begin, with an offset large enough to actually point
into .init.*. Such are _still_ valid to be used in calculations, as long
as no deref occurs for anything at or past __init_begin.
Jan
